“Where were these winning arguments when the case actually went to the Supreme Court?”
Well, in the first place SCOTUS’ jurisdiction over tax law is restricted until after they have been paid. So that’s out. 10th amendment arguments were made, at least implicitly. I can speak for a majority of my arguments being different than those presented in court because I am not bound by caring what the justices think, and therefore do not argue as if SCOTUS precedent, especially over the last 70 or so years, is legitimate.
This was a wacky case, as Roberts flopped last minute and the administration won on a point no one thought central. I can’t say exactly what were the arguments made against the mandate as a tax, other than that it was coercive, maybe. Anyway, like I said, lawyers argue for the judge’s ears, and often judges are tuned to anything but the actual law. And I’m not just talking about the gulf between the Constitution and precedent (see Roberts on the result of elections).
Well, in the first place SCOTUS jurisdiction over tax law is restricted until after they have been paid.
Wow, well you'd better call them up and tell them that, since they apparently forgot and ruled on the case anyway.
10th amendment arguments were made, at least implicitly.
I love how all of these 10th Amendment arguments were made -- just nobody bothered to cite the 10th Amendment when making them. That's priceless.
I can speak for a majority of my arguments being different than those presented in court because I am not bound by caring what the justices think, and therefore do not argue as if SCOTUS precedent, especially over the last 70 or so years, is legitimate.
So you win in Make Believe Supreme Court. I guess that's what we have here: MBSCOTUS. How adorable.
If Free Republic is a place for conservatism applied to make-believe worlds, then yeah, I'm in the wrong place.